Women and the Black Radical Tradition: Claudia Jones and Ella Baker

By Denise Lynn

On Christmas day 1964, Claudia Jones, only forty-nine years old, died alone in her
London apartment. Over three hundred people attended her funeral on January 9, 1965
to commemorate the woman who spent her entire adult life agitating against oppression.
“Visitors who come to London’s Highgate Cemetery see that next to the grave of Karl
Marx there is the tombstone of Claudia Jones. Many wonder what earned her the honor
of being buried beside the founder of scientific communism.” [1] On the other side of the globe, Ella Baker, a leading African-American Civil
Rights leader, was defending her theories of decentralized leadership. Tensions mounted
in the movement when grassroots organizations rejected the ideas of central leadership
and non-violence. One such organization, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC), founded in part, by the efforts of Ella Baker, became dedicated to Ella’s
ideals of decentralized leadership, challenging the authority of high profile individuals
in the Civil Rights Movement. In this paper I will examine the experiences of these
two radicals.

Both Ella Baker and Claudia Jones spent their entire adult lives writing, speaking
and debating the issues that African-Americans faced. These issues included racist
oppression, class hierarchy and the roles of women. However, although they both confronted
the same issues, they had divergent philosophies that shaped their political careers.
Their individual ideas can be examined in terms of Winston James’ definition of radicalism
and Cedric Robinson’s theory of the development of the Black Radical tradition. Although
the radicalism of both Ella Baker and Claudia Jones fits within Robinson and James’
definitions, their unique experiences as women helped define their ideas and theories,
and transform the role of women in the Black Radical tradition.

In Winston James’, Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia, he defines radicalism or radical politics as, “the challenging of the status quo either
on the basis of social class, race (or ethnicity), or a combination of the two.” [2] He goes on to articulate, in terms of the above definition, radicals. According
to James radicals, therefore, “are avowed anti-capitalists, as well as adherents of
varieties of Black Nationalism.” [3] Included in this definition are those who have attempted to unite anti-capitalist
and nationalist thought. Though James examined Black Radicalism in terms of Caribbean
migrants in the United States, his definition could be applied to native-born African-Americans
as well.

However, before examining this definition in further detail, it is useful to examine
Cedric Robinson’s thoughts on Black Radicalism. In Robinson’s book, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition, the Black Radical tradition “emerged from the West’s suppression of Europe’s previous
knowledge of the African (and its own) past.” [4] According to Robinson, the radical tradition emerged out of the Atlantic Slave
trade, along with a racial identity. The West, therefore, cannot claim to be the
inspiration of the Black Radical tradition; instead it is the social cauldron. [5] Robinson claims that Radicalism emerged, not within European history, but rather
on its periphery. It is a result of the contact between Europeans and Africans, however;
it cannot be defined within European tradition. Rather, “it is a specifically African
Response to an oppression emergent from the immediate determinants of European development
in the modern era and framed by orders of human exploitation woven into the interstices
of European social life from the inception of Western Civilization.” [6] Simply put, it is the response of Africans, globally, to the industrial and
imperial development of social behavior and thought of the West. Therefore, James’
definition bodes well within Robinson’s articulation of the specific historical development
of Black Radicalism. Both anti-capitalism and nationalism emerged from this European
development.

However, the weakness of both James and Robinson is their failure to recognize the
unique impact of women in the Radical tradition. Though James does include women
in his study, it is brief and weak, because it fails to examine the situation of African-
American Women in terms of Western Civilization, a topic wholly outside the experiences
of African-American men.

African-American women have had an entirely unique experience within the development
of the West. As specific roles for white women developed, African- American women
were relegated to the periphery of both womanhood and humanity. According to Angela
Y. Davis, “as the ideology of femininity-a byproduct of industrialization-was popularized,
white women came to be seen as inhabitants of a sphere totally severed from the realm
of productive work.” [7] The role of African- American women was entirely divergent from the emerging
domestic ideology. According to Davis, “the economic arrangements of slavery contradicted
the hierarchical sexual roles incorporated in the new ideology.” [8] The role of slave women was in complete contrast to those of white women.
This is best articulated in the responsibility of African-American women to reproduce
the free labor force. Throughout the southern United States, “state legislatures
adopted the principle of partus sequitur ventrem-the child follows the condition of the mother.” [9] Ironically, this state imposed matri-lineage was later seen as the point of
degradation for the African-American community. However, what is most significant
is that white Western authority imposed an antithetical role on African-American women,
which has affected their role in both Western society and the Black Radical Tradition.

In effect, African-American women are subject to triple oppression. First, from Western
white male authority, second, they are relegated to second-class citizenship within
their own community as a result of western influenced patriarchy. As a result, of
divergent theories of womanhood, they are subject to second-class womanhood, in contrast
to the domestic ideal of white women. Thus, the experiences of African- American
female radicals are a byproduct of this triple oppression. Claudia Jones and Ella
Baker were shaped in this context.

Claudia Jones was born in Trinidad on February 21, 1915, in the city of Port of Spain.
Trinidad, at the time, was still a part of the British West Indies. Claudia’s family
name was Cumberbatch, and it has been speculated that some of her father’s relatives
at one time came to Trinidad from the neighboring island of Barbados. [10] Claudia was born while the Great War in Europe was raging over colonial rights
in Africa and Asia. On February 9, 1924 Claudia, along with an aunt and three of
her sisters, arrived in New York. Debarking from the S.S. Voltaire under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, Claudia came to the United States to be
with her parents who had already arrived. The family settled in the largely African-American
Harlem, where many other Caribbean’s had already settled. There, her family faced
many of the same problems native-born African-Americans faced, namely Jim Crow.

The Cumberbatch’s faced harder times, when Claudia was 12, her mother, a garment worker,
“died of poverty and exhaustion as she worked at her machine.” [11] Mr. Cumberbatch was left to his own devices to raise Claudia and her three
sisters. The Depression of 1929 hit especially hard in the Black Communities. One
of Claudia’s friends recalled that Claudia:

Was quick and clever at school, but along with 5 million other young people, had to Leave school during the depression and go to work. Seeking jobs, and on the job,
she Came smack up against discrimination at every turn. Instead of futile complaining,
she Determined, as she said in a birthday speech…’to develop an understanding of the Suffering of my people and my class and look for a way forward to end them…’ [12]

Claudia, like other black youth during the depression was forced to go to work. She
worked, at times, as a sales girl and a factory worker. Her experiences as a youth
helped to develop her radicalism. However, the 1930’s also saw mass actions on the
part of global black communities that affected Claudia’s future radical development.

Both the 1936 invasion of Abyssinia by fascist Italian forces and the movement for
the nine youths involved in the Scottsboro frame-up had an incredible political impact
on Claudia. According to Angela Y. Davis, it was through her work in the Scottsboro
Defense Committee that she became acquainted with members of the Communist party. [13]

At the age of 18, Claudia joined the Young Communist League (YCL). According to Claudia,
it was her experiences as a youth that developed her political ideology:

It was out of Jim Crow experiences as a young Negro woman, experiences likewise born Of working class poverty that led me to join the young Communist league and to choose The philosophy of my life, the science of Marxism-Leninism-that philosophy that not
Only rejects racist ideas, but is the antithesis of them. [14]

The Scottsboro case piqued the interest of many African-Americans in the Communist
Party of the United States (CPUSA). According to Robin D. G. Kelley, “the Communist
led ILD (International Labor Defense) attracted national attention for its defense
of nine young black men accused of raping two white women near Paint Rock, Alabama.” [15] Claudia began to rise in ranks within the CPUSA, by the time she was in her
twenties, she became responsible for the party’s Women’s commission.

It was not until 1945 when a controversy within the CPUSA emerged, did Claudia become
a well-known member of the party and an important voice for women. In 1945, Claudia
published an article in Political Affairs entitled, “On the Right to Self-Determination for the Negro People in the Black Belt.”
Prior to this an ideological struggle emerged within the party ranks between Earl
Browder and William Z. Foster over self-determination. Browder drew a line between,
“the national liberation struggle of an oppressed nation” and its “nationalist” bourgeoisie,
which “invariably subordinates itself to the interests of the oppressing imperialist
power.” [16] He raised the issue over whether African-Americans could be included in the
communist working class consciousness or as a separate entity within the larger capitalist
struggle. According to Paul Buhle, “the national question, the status of an oppressed
group within a state or empire, tended by its very nature to raise questions about
the entire Marxist Class analysis.” [17]

Claudia’s article emerged within this debate and had an impact on other black communists.
In Harry Haywood’s autobiography, Black Bolshevik, he claimed, “I was withdrawn-still reluctant to become involved in the inner-Party
struggle. But I had seen an article by Claudia Jones, a young black woman communist
from the West Indies who had challenged Browder’s line on the right to self-determination.” [18] Haywood concluded, “The article had greatly stimulated my interest.” [19] According to Haywood, the article sparked several issues within the debate
and raised the issue of the interests of the black community. The article also articulated
Claudia’s own theories within radicalism, including the alliance of Black Nationalism
and anti-capitalism.

The article attacked Browder’s revisionist views on the question of the African- American
community. According to Claudia, “Even the worst enemies of the Communist Party cannot
fail to admit that we have been in the forefront of the struggle for equality of the
Negro People.” [20] The CPUSA had previously been reputed as an organization concerned with the
interests of African-American people. Since the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, the
Communist International (COMINTERN) took special interests in African- Americans.
In 1928, the sixth World Congress of the COMINTERN, “insisted that blacks concentrated
in the black belt counties of the Deep South constituted an oppressed nation.” [21] Browder challenged these by claiming that Marxist ideology did not recognize
special interests, rather, African-Americans were not a separate oppressed class.
Browder wanted to maintain a distinct class-consciousness, regardless of race and
gender identity.

Claudia emerged as a leading ideologue in the communist community. Her article articulated
her ideas on the rights of self-determination within the black community, specifically
the African-American community. Her nationalist sentiment emerged within her communist
identity. She maintained that, “It was our understanding of the Negro Question as
a national question, that is, as the question of a nation oppressed by American imperialism,
in the ultimate sense as India is oppressed by British imperialism and Indonesia by
Dutch imperialism.” [22] African Americans were essentially an oppressed nation; her ideas echoed the
1928 COMINTERN Pact. “Every aspect of Negro oppression in our country stems from
the existence of an oppressed nation, in the heart of the South, the Black Belt.” [23] The oppression of African-Americans was a byproduct of imperialism. In essence,
although she claimed that African-Americans were a separate nation within the larger
nation, they had a specific identity as a result of western imperialism. Her theories
also had a direct impact on the role of women within the communist party.

As a result of her involvement in the debate over self-determination, according to
Rebecca Hill, “Claudia Jones emerged out of the Popular Front as one of its more obstreperous
critics.” [24] When she attacked Browder’s position on self-determination, she did not stop
at addressing the race question. She also attacked the party on issues of sexism.
“Claudia used the moment of internal rethinking, to question common Old Left assumptions
about race, class and gender.” [25] Sexism, according to Claudia, was another form of fascism. Her goal was to,
“inspire the growing struggles of American women and heighten their consciousness
of the need for militant united front campaigns around the burning demands of the
day, against monopoly oppression, against war and fascism.” [26]

A theory emerged out of women’s wartime (WWII) experiences. The theory, called the
Fascist Triple K-(Kinder, Küche, Kirche-children, kitchen, church), was a critique of the domestic ideology that emerged
in the post-War United States. Claudia claimed that, “The aim of this and other numerous
anti-woman “theories” is to hamper and curb women’s progressive social participation,
particularly in the struggle for peace.” [27] Claudia frequently compared the Fascist Triple K of Nazi Germany to the roles
of American Women. Her belief that women’s assigned roles were a form of domestic
fascism helped her to articulate the global struggle of women, and the specific need
for the Communist Party to address those needs.

The fascist threat on women was, according to Claudia, “monopoly capitalism.” [28] The threat was in the form of popular culture. “We can above all expose the
reactionary essence of monopoly capitalism, which on the one hand clouts the women
with rocketing prices, housing shortages, hysterical threats of war; while, on the
other, it woos them with free movies, speakers, etc., on the glories of American ‘free
enterprise.” [29] Capitalism, according to Claudia, lured American women into poverty and hysteria,
while simultaneously offering them the promises of material wealth. This in essence,
was a direct threat on the autonomy of women, as well as their value in a capitalist
labor structure. Women, under this system, essentially had no value outside of the
home. Domestic work had no productive value in the industrial economy; however, its
purpose was to keep women away from the political sphere.

Claudia’s primary objection to the domestic ideology was that it failed to create
class-consciousness among women. The propaganda following WWII encouraged the compulsory
evacuation of women from industrial jobs. According to Rebecca Hill, “Communist Feminist
writers objected to these representations by arguing that women had a right to work
and to continue working after the war. This was one of the few ways in which Popular
Front supporters tacitly argued against state agendas and policies during the war.” [30] Much of the objection to the Fascist Triple K was in response to the War in
Europe. In her article commemorating the leadership of William Foster, Claudia Jones
claimed that, “In formerly Nazi-occupied Europe, women resolved never again to return
to the time when they were merely breeders of warriors.” [31] Her statement alludes to both the fascist government of the Nazi’s as well
as the role of women as reproducers of free labor. In the case of Nazi’s, it is soldiers,
however, it is also an allusion to the reproductive responsibilities of African slaves.
She continues her statement that the women also did not want to be merely, “objects
of pleasure, according to the old motto: Kinder, Kirche, Küche.” [32] The fascist triple K had roots not only in Nazi occupied Germany, but in African
slavery as well. The fundamental problem was monopoly capitalism’s claim on women.
Claudia claimed that, “The Wall Street monopoly capitalists in their drive to aggressive
world domination, atomic war and domestic fascism are seeking to align the masses
of women with the war camp.” [33] The threat of monopoly capitalists was a direct challenge to the Communist
party.

Claudia’s most fundamental concern was the role of black women. Her most insightful
theory is on the activities of black women in radicalism. In a 1949 article she claimed
that, “The capitalists know, far better than many progressives seem to know, that
once Negro women undertake action, the militancy of the whole Negro people, and thus
of the anti-imperialist coalition, is greatly enhanced.” [34] She claimed that their radicalism is rooted in slavery. Similar to Robinson’s
theory of black radicalism, Claudia believed that the roots of militancy lay in the
oppression imposed on Africans during slavery. Women especially, felt the brunt of
these attacks. Claudia claimed that, “Historically, the Negro woman has been the
guardian, the protector, of the Negro Family,” she continues:

From the days of the slave traders down to the present, the Negro woman has had the responsibility of caring for the needs of the family, of militantly shielding it
from the blows of Jim Crow insults, of rearing children in an atmosphere of lynch terror,
segregation, and police brutality, and of fighting for an education for the children. [35]

African-American women have been responsible, according to Claudia, for the protection
and rearing of children. More important, they have had to protect their children
from the racism of the white community. This view of African-American women has a
direct link to the fascism of capitalism. Claudia claimed that, “Nothing so exposes
the drive to fascization in the nation as the callous attitude which the bourgeoisie
displays and cultivates toward Negro women.” [36] African-American women were not included in the domestic ideology because
they were subject to bourgeois claims on their labor.

This is clear when one examines the large-scale exclusion of African-American women
from the professions. They have traditionally been relegated to the domestic arena
of bourgeois domestic settings. Monopoly capitalism perpetuates this idea in propaganda
that included the, “mammy who puts the care of children and families of others above
her own.” [37] This idea is reminiscent of antebellum slave holding families. African-American
women, have since according to Claudia Jones, been forced back into the homes of whites,
thereby forfeiting their domesticity within the African-American community. Claudia
argued that this image must be combated in order to reject it as a, “device of the
imperialists to perpetuate the white chauvinist ideology that Negro women are ‘backward,’
‘inferior,’ and the ‘natural slaves,’ of others.” [38]

Claudia adopted the fascist triple K theory to point out to the CPUSA their failure
to address the needs of women, including African-American women. Claudia urged communists,
like she had during the Browder debate, to recognize the issues of women and race
within Marxist theory. As Lenin claimed, and Claudia Jones reiterated women, “can
be at times the decisive part of the mass movement.” [39] The conflict emerged after World War II when the CPUSA echoed the movement
of the larger society and relegated women to domestic roles. The Communist Party
also failed to organize women in industry as well as African-American domestic workers.
Claudia complained that this was a fundamental failure of the party. In response
to a draft resolution of 1948 to build up anti-monopoly and peace campaigns, she claimed
that, “The resolution does not sufficiently stress the need for the people’s coalition
to fight for the special social, economic and political needs of the masses of American
women.” [40] She continued to claim that, “Nor does it emphasize the Party’s vanguard responsibility
in organizing and winning working-class women to the anti-imperialist camp.” [41] The most vital aspect of Claudia’s theory is the incorporation of women and
issues of gender into the Communist party line. Her theories are an amalgam of the
radical tradition defined by both Winston James and Cedric Robinson. Claudia Jones
recognized the oppression of the working class, African-Americans and women in the
context of the anti-capitalist movement. She simultaneously combined the concerns
of Black Nationalism within the movement to combat class discrimination. She was
also successful in incorporating the issues of women in the movement to oppose monopoly
capitalism. Unfortunately, Claudia paid dearly for her radical ideologies.

In 1948, Claudia Jones, along with other avowed communists, was arrested on charges
of seeking to, “overthrow the government by force and violence.” [42] She was arrested as a result of the Smith Act, as well as the McCarran Act,
which regulated immigration. Since Claudia was not a US citizen she was targeted
under the McCarran Act. Eventually Claudia served a year sentence after fighting
legal battles with the US between 1948 and 1955. She was eventually deported to England
where she continued her political agitation as a member of the Communist Party.

Although Claudia Jones was younger, she and Ella Baker were contemporaries in the
movements for social agitation. Ella Baker was born on December 13, 1903 in Norfolk,
Virginia. In 1911, she moved with her family to rural Littleton, North Carolina where
they worked as farmers. As Ella would later explain, the church in her community
became a base for the family and herself. She joined the church at nine years old
because, she explains, “In an environment where aggressive leadership existed largely
in the church, I responded to the church.” [43] Despite the role of the church in her early life, Ella remained distant from
the dogma, dubious of the Church’s role in the African- American community. “I am
always happy to think,” she said, “that to some extent I was saved from the worst
aspects of religiosity because my family was not emotional in its religion.” [44] At an early age she was critical of the role of preachers, she believed that
their sermons were rich with noise, but lacked substance. This critique would carry
over to her later philosophies of organization.

Ella’s early years had a profound influence on her political development. Her grandparents,
Mitchell and Betsy Ross had been slaves. She grew up listening to their stories;
one in particular, however, sparked her interests. Her grandmother, Betsy Ross, was
pressed by her master to marry someone she had no desire to marry. When Betsy refused,
her master did not whip her, instead he sent her out of the house, to the fields.
As Ella’s grandfather explained, “the master would not let her be whipped. No, sir.
You know why? ‘Cause she was his daughter.” [45] As the story goes, Betsy worked in the fields and attended social occasions
for the slaves to flaunt her undaunted spirit. Her master intended on her marrying
someone who was light skinned. According to Joanne Grant, in her biography of Ella
Baker, “For Ella Baker this spoke of rebellion, particularly because it delineated
the color lines: The mistress wanted the lighter skin tones to be perpetuated, but
Ella Baker’s forebears said no.” [46] These stories exposed Ella to the foundations of the Black Radical tradition,
the rebelliousness of slaves against tyrannical masters.

Ella’s family had a profound influence on her political development. According to
Charles Payne, she remembered the world of her childhood as a kind of “family socialism,”
a world in which food and tools and homes were shared, where informal adoption of
children was taken for granted, a world with a minimal sense of social hierarchy. [47] This world influenced her later ideas of economic development and social equality
within the African-American community. Her grandparent’s stories of rebellion, and
her mother’s role in the church influenced her radical development, as she grew older.

Education was central to Ella’s early years. Her mother insisted that she be properly
educated, teaching her to read before she attended school. However, education for
African-Americans was limited after Grammar school. Her mother sent her off to Shaw
University in Raleigh, North Carolina. “She entered Shaw, not as a scholarship student
but as one who had to work her way through the boarding school.” [48] She went to Shaw in the fall of 1918, according to Barbara Ransby, at a time
of political turmoil. It was the tail end of World War I and during the Wilson administration,
the first southerner to be elected to the presidency since Reconstruction. “Ella
also entered Shaw at a time when both black rights and women’s rights were at important
crossroads.” [49] Woman’s suffrage would be gained two years later, however; African-Americans,
particularly women would continue to be systematically excluded from the franchise.
The environment of Shaw opened up a new world for Ella. It was a Baptist school run
by white benefactors. It was also the first black institution to enroll women. “The
philosophy of the school’s administrators emphasized humility and Christian service,
but at the same time they reinforced many elitist assumptions about social class.” [50] Ella finished her high school and college education at Shaw becoming the Valedictorian
of her class. In 1927, she left the University and headed north to Harlem, New York.

Ella Baker’s previous experiences as the granddaughter of ex-slaves and her college
education broadened her worldview, however, when she reached Harlem she was exposed
to a community rampant with political debate and cultural development. Ella immersed
herself in the intellectual community of Harlem, attending lectures, participating
in debates, and learning about theories of economic oppression and nationalism. Here
she became acquainted with many African-American figures, including A. Phillip Randolph,
James Weldon Johnson and George Shuyler. She also met some radical activists from
the Caribbean, including Cyril Briggs. “Harlem exposed her to heated debates over
fundamental ideas such as the relative merits of communism, socialism, and capitalism.” [51]

The Great Depression of 1929 exacerbated conditions for the African-American Community.
Ella Baker was no exception; the poor economic conditions of the community not only
affected her financial well being, it also influenced her politics. “Subsequently,
the economic dislocations of the Depression played an important part in her rejection
of ‘the American illusion that anyone who is determined can get ahead.” [52] Ella began to formulate her ideas of community based organizing. She realized
that one could organize people around the grassroots. Baker’s experiences in Harlem
provided an organic learning experience. According to George Shuyler, “By force of
circumstances her ‘post-graduate’ work has included domestic service, factory work
and other freelance labors.” [53]

The economic dislocations of the African-American community compelled Ella, along
with Marvel Cooke, to investigate the impact on women in labor. The two went undercover
for a day soliciting for domestic work on the street corners of New York. Their results
were published in the November 1935 issue of The Crisis, entitled, “The Bronx Slave Market.” According to Barbara Ransby, the article. “reflected
Ella’s lucid assessment of the complex reality of race, gender and class in the lives
of African- American women.” [54] The women were forced to seek work on the street corners since employment
agencies were limited in the area. To both Ella and Marvel Cooke, the scene resembled
a slave auction block. In the article they claimed, “She who is fortunate (?) enough
to please Mrs. Simon Legree’s scrutinizing eye is led away to perform hours of multifarious
household drudgeries.” [55] Their direct illusion to Uncle Tom’s Cabin’s most notorious character insinuates the resemblance of slavery to the conditions of
African-American women. The issue was domestic work, contested terrain for African-
American women who had traditionally been relegated to that arena, and were forced
to the streets to perpetuate their conditions. The depression struck African-American
women especially hard and Ella Baker understood this. One of the solutions the women
drew from their investigation was that domestic workers needed to be organized. This
idea reflected Ella’s socialist sympathies. Although she never identified her self
as a Marxist she was aware that economic conditions played an enormous role in the
lives of African-Americans.

Ella was not dedicated to one dogma, or philosophy of social change; rather, she believed
that organization could radically affect society. “She combined the Black Baptist
missionary values of charity, humility, and service with the economic theories of
Marxists and Socialists of various stripes who advocated redistribution of wealth
and a transfer of power from capitalist elites to the poor working classes.” [56] This she believed could be accomplished on the community level. Ella combined
her religious experiences as a youth and the influence of Harlem intellectuals to
formulate a theory of grassroots organizing. She claimed that, “I think the nearest
thing to an answer is having people understand their position and understand their
potential power and how to use it. This can only be done, as I see it, through the
long route, almost, of actually organizing people in small groups and parlaying those
into larger groups.” [57] Her theories centered on the idea of de-centralized leadership. Although she
appreciated the role of religion in the African-American Community, she recognized
the roles of preachers as too central. A central figure often placed more emphasis
on their own public development, instead of the development of the community.

To answer some of the problems of the Depression, and an experiment in Ella’s theories
of organizing, she along with her friend George Shuyler formed the Young Negro Cooperative
League (YNCL). According to Ella, the organization’s purpose was to, “accept with
zest the opportunity which is now ours to prove to ourselves and others that the Negro
can and will save himself from economic death.” [58] Although the organization failed, it was an experiment in socialist organizing
that Ella had experienced in the rural community she was raised in. It exhibited
the ideals that Ella would dedicate the rest of her life to, namely grassroots organizing.

For the remainder of Ella’s life she was involved in organizations such as the NAACP,
SCLC and SNCC however, her political ideas could not be limited to one organization.
Her experiences in some of the organizations radically altered her ideas on leadership
and the roles of women. As one of the founding members of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC), Baker witnessed first-hand the rise of charismatic leaders.
However, she also realized that women were often excluded from public leadership roles.
She claimed that, “I had known…that there would never be any role for me in a leadership
capacity with SCLC. Why? First, I’m a woman. Also, I’m not a minister…The basic attitude
of men and especially ministers, as to…the role of women in their church setups is
that of taking orders, not providing leadership.” [59] This fueled her criticism of centralized leadership. Ella believed that under
the leadership of the SCLC, the voices of young people as well as women were being
drowned out.

One advantage of her position in the SCLC allowed her to organize others. She utilized
her role to organize students; the result was the formation of the Student Non-Violent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Unlike the SCLC, the students were not entirely satisfied
with integration, which many had come to see as accommodationist. Rather, they wanted
to force radical change. Dubbed, “Ella’s Children,” [60] the students of SNCC penetrated rural areas, organizing the young and women.
According to Charles Payne, it became the organization Ella had longed to create. [61] SNCC, during the formative years, rejected centralized leadership and adopted
Ella’s ideas of group led organization. Ella claimed in 1960 that, “This inclination
toward group-centered leadership, rather than toward leader-centered group pattern of organization was refreshing indeed to those of the older group who bear the scars
of the battle.” Ella went on to claim that, “the disillusionment that come when the
prophetic leader turns out to have heavy feet of clay.” [62] This was a biting attack of the leadership of other organizations including
NAACP and SCLC. She claimed that SNCC was a refreshing alternative to older organizations
simply because they were overshadowed by leaders who were invested in the approval
of the white community.

In a 1966 interview, Ella Baker claimed that, “The NAACP, Urban League, etc., do not
change society, they want to get in. It’s a combination of concern with the black
goal for itself and, beyond that, with the whole society, because this is the acid
test of whether the outs can get in and share in equality and worth.” [63] Her attacks of mainstream Civil Rights organizations reflected her goals of
socialist organizing. The community was the base, according to Ella, and that base
was the foundation for change in society. One reason Ella Baker’s role in Civil Rights
has often been overshadowed is due to her inconspicuous position. She refused to
take over leadership of organizations, including SNCC, because it refuted her ideals
of community organization. She was dedicated to the rural communalism she was raised
in, and suspicious of leaders who sought the limelight instead of community development.
In her own words, “I hoped that inside of me there has always been the concept that
the whole is greater than the part-that is the concept of developing a movement that
involves people to the extent that they become knowledgeable about their own condition
and were activated to do something about it.” [64] Ella brought her ideas to the community and subsequently radically altered
the organization of the Civil Rights movement.

Ella’s influences were outside of traditional Western ideals. As Robinson claims,
slavery and its cultural development on the periphery of Western thought influenced
the Black Radical tradition. Ella drew her ideas from her family and its tradition
rooted in slavery and resistance. She utilized these ideas to formulate a theory
of community organizing that resembled her rural upbringing.

She was not, however; devoted to one theory of oppression. Although she was sympathetic
to socialist ideals, she did not adopt their solutions. She was, according to Winston
James’ definition of radicalism, anti-capitalist; however, she did not espouse radical
communist insurrection. She also did not define herself in terms of Black Nationalism.
Ella had contact with West Indians and was sympathetic to the plight of Abyssinians,
however; she remained skeptical of nationalism. According to Barbara Ransby, “Ella
Baker never espoused narrow nationalist ideas in the way that some contemporary movements
did.” [65] She had an international outlook that was critical of colonialism, however,
her ideals were far too eclectic to invest in Black Nationalist ideas. Ella Baker
remained dedicated to organization on the community level, even among poor whites,
to combat the evils of capitalism and oppression.

Both Ella Baker and Claudia Jones spent their adult lives organizing for social justice,
a justice that included African-Americans, women and the poor. Their theories, however
eclectic, reflect Winston James’ definition of radicalism. Both women recognized
the evils of capitalism, specifically its affect on African-Americans. They both
experienced the worst economic crisis of the early twentieth century, witnessing the
impact of poverty and destitution on the working class and African-Americans. This
contributed to their attacks on capitalism. However, the fundamental difference is
that Claudia Jones adopted Marxist theories to combat class oppression and Ella Baker
formulated community-based ideals of organization that reflect socialism, but adopted
no specific dogma.

Claudia Jones remained a devout communist her entire adult life. Her dedication is
evident when one visits the grave of Karl Marx. Right next to the founder of communism
is Claudia Jones’ gravesite, the inscription on her headstone reads, “Valiant fighter
against racism and Imperialism who dedicated her life to the progress of socialism
and the liberation of her own Black people.” [66] Early in her life, Claudia developed a class and race consciousness that allowed
her at an early age to adhere to Marxist philosophies. Her solution was a socialist
uprising, this only, she believed, would liberate the masses of the oppressed from
class, race and gender oppression.

Although Ella Baker too had a distinct class and race consciousness, rooted in her
upbringing, Ella did not believe in Marxist theory, she was in fact often a critic
of the CPUSA. She admired their de-centralized committees that allowed for effective
organizing, however, she did not believe in Marxist ideology. Instead, she created
her own ideals of organizing that would forever impact the grassroots movement. Although
she was already over fifty when she helped organize SNCC, she recognized the importance
of young people and women in the movement for social justice. Her ideas of de-centralized
leadership created a schism in the movement between organizations dedicated to non-violence,
led by individuals and organizations committed to community organizing that became
disillusioned by the violence of whites and the often ineffectiveness of non-violence.

Although Claudia Jones was also devoted to Black Nationalism, Ella Baker was suspicious
of nationalist sentiments. Staying within the borders of the United States her entire
life, Ella recognized the oppression of Blacks globally and often rallied to their
support, however, she was not interested in nationalism. Claudia Jones was born
in the West Indies and remained concerned about the state of Blacks in the international
arena. During her exile in London she became the editor of the West Indian Gazette and traveled often in support of equal rights, including a demonstration in South
Africa against Apartheid.

Both of these women were also influenced by the role of Blacks and women as a result
of the development of the Black Radical Tradition. Her grandparents who had lived
their early lives in bondage more directly influenced Ella Baker. She heard their
stories of resistance and struggle and developed her own ideals of radicalism based
on their influence. Both women were also concerned with African-American women as
domestics, reminiscent of slavery. They agitated for the recognition of women and
their liberation from the homes of whites. Their ideas were rooted in the oppression
of slavery, and the poor economic development of Blacks on both a global and a local
level.

They were also both targeted by US officials as threats to the well being of the country.
Some have argued that Claudia Jones imprisonment exacerbated her already failing health
and contributed to her early demise. Although Ella Baker was older, she lived another
twenty-two years after Claudia Jones. During her life, federal officials also investigated
her. These investigations legitimize the impact of both Ella Baker and Claudia Jones.
They were a threat not merely because they vocalized their objections to oppression,
they also agitated others and influenced younger generations of activists. The most
enduring impact of both women is that they forged a new role for women in social justice
movements. Claudia Jones forced the CPUSA to recognize the influence of women and
their role in the working class community and Ella Baker forged a new role for women
and youths in the Civil Rights movement. Although they were dedicated to different
and often divergent ideologies, Claudia Jones and Ella Baker helped to forge an important
role for women within the Black Radical tradition. They became the voice for those
who were often silenced and agitated not only for the recognition of women in the
radical tradition, but for the recognition of the unique role women have played both
in the development of the radical tradition and the development of ideologies within
it.

[3] James p292-anti-capitalists include socialists, communists, adherents and practitioners
of other variants of Marxism, and non-Marxist anti-capitalists such as anarcho-syndicalists.
Black Nationalists include emigrationists, pan-Africanists, Garveyites, black statehood
supporters, or a combination of these.

[4] Cedric Robinson, Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1983) p. 3.

[20] Claudia Jones, “On the Right To Self Determination For the Negro People in the Black Belt.”Political Affairs (January 1946) p. 68. Claudia goes on to sight the Scottsboro case as evidence of
the CPUSA’s previous interests in the problems of African Americans.

[21] Kelley p. 13.

[22] Claudia Jones, “On the Right to Self Determination…” p. 69.

[23] Claudia Jones, “On the Right to Self Determination…” p. 69.

[24] Rebecca Hill, “Fosterites and Feminists, Or 1950’s Ultra-Leftists and the Invention
of AmeriKKKa.” New Left Review, 228 (1998) p. 69.